gussasphalt bridge deck p~otective system€¦ · gussasphalt bridge deck p~otective system final...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM
FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS
A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner
E. H. Stickney, Chief Engineer
R. F. Nicholson, Materials Engi neer
Principal Investigator
R. H. Snow
Report Prepared By
R. I. Frascoia Research Special ist
![Page 2: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OFFICC O F THE COMM ISSI O N E R
STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
MONTPELIER
015602
May 23, 1978
Mr. David B. Kelley, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Federal Building Nontpelier, Vermont 05602
Att: D. J. Philbri ck
Dear Mr. Kelley:
Re: Failure of Category II Experimental Feature on US Rte. 302 Bridge over I 91 in Newbury
Problems have been experienced with the pavement on the U.S. Route 302 eastbound lane over I 91 in Newbury since construction in October, 1973 . The pavement distress has occurred in the form of migration or cracking. Repairs carried out in 1974 and 1975 included an area of 68 s.y. or 8% of the deck area. Distress is currently visible at five additional locations which encompass an area of approximately 130 s.y. or 13% of the deck surface.
The major cause of failure was believed due to the absence of the normal impregnated coating on the fiberglass reinforcement which resulted in shear failures of the membrane along the reinforcement.
We do not believe further temporary repair of the pavement and membrane is a viable solution to the problem. We propose that the existing pavement and membrane be removed and replaced under a Force Account project with the membrane application carried out by an experienced waterproofing contractor.
Since the membrane system was installed as a Category II experimental feature, we respectfully request that Federal-Aid Interstate funds be made eligible for repair of the failure as covered under the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 6 Chapter 4, Section 2, Subsection 4, Transmittal 249, September 15, 1977.
![Page 3: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
State of Vermont AOT David Kelley Letter
An estimate of the cost would be as fo llows:
Traffic Control Pavement & Membrane Removal Surface Preparation Membrane (840 s.y. @ $ 5.00) Pavement (93 tons @ $40.00)
Total
May 23, 1978 Page 2 of 2
Enclosed also , please find a layout and photos showing the present condition of the pavement .
![Page 4: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
ACKN Ol~LEDGMENT
This experiment was performed in cooperation with The Demonstration
Projects Division, Region 15, of the Federal Highway Administration, under
negotiated Contract DOT FH-15-137.
The information contained in this report was compiled exclusively
for the use of the Vermont Department of Highways and the Federal Highway
Administration. Recommendations contained herein are based upon the
research data obtained and the expertise of the researchers, and are not
necessarily to be construed as Department or FHl~A policy. No material
contained herein is to be reproduced - wholly or in part - without the
express written consent of the Vermont Department of Highways.
![Page 5: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Observations and Follotrup Evaluations
Summary
Typical Cross Section of Gussasphalt
Crack Pattern in Gussasphalt
Photographs
Data on Traffic Volume, Climatic Conditions and Deicing Chemical Applications
Summary of Chloride Levels, Resistivity and Moisture Strip Readings
1
2
5
6
7
8
11
12
![Page 6: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
INTRODUCTION
In August, 1974, a mastic asphalt membrane and Gussasphalt pavement
was placed on east and l-Testbound spans of Vermont Rte. 62 over Blaclmrell
Street in Barre, Vermont. The experiment l'las conducted in cooperation with
the Federal Highl.ray Administration, Region No. 15 Demonstration Projects
Division, as part of Demonstration Project No. 22, "Demonstration of
Paving Mastic Asphalt Protective Systems for Bridge Decks".
Detailed information on the production and application of the mat-
erials was recorded and reported in Vermont Department of Highways Report
No. 74-7 entitled, "Gussasphalt Bridge Deck Protective System". Initial
observation and test results indicated that the production and application
of the system were successful considering the experimental nature of the
trial . However, the cost of the system was excessive at $62.35 per square yard.
1
![Page 7: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
OBSERVATIONS AND FOLLOW UP EVALUATIONS
Evaluation of the Gussasphalt system during the first winter's
installation was limited to visual observations and a check of moisture
sensors which had been placed at four locations on the concrete surface.
An in-depth evaluation of t he system was made in June, 1975. There were
no signs of distress or cracking in the Gussasphalt nor was there any
indication that the material had pulled away from the granite curb lines.
Good surface textures were noted, a lthough chips had begun to wear off
the westbound lane. Chips l'lere also missing at several small areas on
the eastbound roadway but the shape of the areas suggests that the loss
t..ras due to a lack of adhesion during construction rather than l..rear from
traffic. Indentations were visible on the westerly end of the westbound
lane where a tractor tired vehicle had parked along the curb line. Transverse
cracks were noted on the westerly end of both lanes where the bituminous
pavement butted the Gussasphalt. The cracks were due to stresses lilhich
developed when the joints between the bituminous pavement and Gussasphalt
were not sawed directly over the end of the spans. Electrical resistivity
t ests "t..rere taken at 64 locations over a two-hour period. All readings were
recorded at infinity indicating the system was impermeable. Readings taken
on the moisture sensors (copper foil strips) revealed resistance values
between 250 and 800 ohms. Such low readings suggest a short-circuiting
effect caused by the flow of a chloride solution between sensors. However,
since the resistivity readings on the system were high and the curb lines
appeared to be properly sealed, the validity of the readings were considered
suspect.
2
![Page 8: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
See climatic conditions, deicing chemical applications, and traffic
data on page 11.
No further evaluations of the system were made in 1975 with the
exception of visual observations. On February 22, 1976, a visual inspection
of the Gussasphalt pavements revealed the existance of a network of connected
random cracks in both spans (see crack layout on page 7) . Approximately
170 lineal feet of cracks were noted on each span but the total footage
could not be initially determinded due to the existance of snow banks along
three of the four curb lines. The exposed curb line revealed that a number
of the cracks extended towards the curb line but all stopped short of the
curb face. The average width of the cracks at the riding surface loJ'as 1/16
inch while the maximum width was measured at 3/16th inch. The cracks extended
through the full depth of the Gussasphalt and mastic asphalt membrane as
evidenced by cores taken through four crack locations and chloride concentrations
recorded .on ice and water samples taken from curb line drain tubes. The
latter may also have been due in part to leakage at the curb line since
inspection of such areas after the snow had melted revealed a definite loss
of adhesion between the Gussasphalt and granite at numerous locations. The
formation of an additional crack was noted in each span on March 18, 1976.
Repair of the system was carried out in April, 1976. The procedure
included routing of the cracks, burning to remove moisture and sealing loJ'ith
a hot poured joint sealer which was certified to meet Federal Specification
SS-S-1401A. The routing was done l'lith 1/2 inch bits for an average depth of
5/ 8 inch. The sealing procedure along the outer curb lines included removal
of the Gussasphalt along a 2 inch wide by 2 inch deep area. Treatment along
3
![Page 9: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
t he median curb lines consisted of cutting a 1 1/ 2 inch wide by 2 inch deep
groove which was then filled with joint sealer. The transverse cracks
which had ocurred t he first year along the westerly end of both spans
were also sealed. The cost of the repairs totaled $1,103 .84.
The second evaluation of the system was made on September 14, 1976 .
Little, i f any, change was noted in the texture of t he riding surface. In
finite el ectrical resistance readings were recor ded on the Gussasphalt with
the exception of readings between 8 mil lion and 25 mill ion ohms obtained over
sealed crack locations. Pulverized concrete core samples were taken from
t hree representative areas in order that the level of chloride contamination
could be determined and compared with any possi ble future i ncrease due to
either Gussasphalt or crack filler leakage . All three cores disclosed high
chloride levels at both 0 - 1 inch and 1 - 2 inch depths (see chloride
levels on page 12). The highest contamination, recorded at approximately
3 pounds chloride per cubic yard of concrete, occured in the top inch at a '
location 1.5 f eet down grade from a crack in the Gussasphalt. However,
chloride levels from 1 - 2 pounds were also detected in cores taken 1 foot off
the curbline and at a location 7 to 13 feet away from adjacent cracks where
chloride ingress had not been anticipated. The widspread contamination may
have been due in part to a wicking acti on provided by the fiberglass mesh
and cloth vapor release layer beneath the membrane .
4
![Page 10: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
SUMMARY
The unsatisfactory performance of t he Gussasphalt system was no
doubt due to a number of factors with t he ultimate crack failure brought
on by low temperatures. Although the material was generally not heated
to the 420°F - 450°F recommended range, a high percentage of it was heated
a t 350°F to 390°F for an extended period of time. The extended heating
period may have damaged some of the mix by hardening the asphalt, as indicated
by variations in viscosity and penetration values obtained on recovered
asphalt samples. Leakage of the system at the curb line may have been
prevented if the curb surface had been primed with material capable of
promoting adhesion of the mastic asphalt to the substrate.
Pulverized core samples taken from the WB deck after the overlay
failure revealed chloride levels of 284 to 755 ppm in the top inch as
compared to initial levels of 49 to 66 ppm.
Inspection of the system will continue with emphasis on the performance
of the crack filler since failure of the latter will result in further
chloride contamination which will bring chloride levels above acceptable
limits.
5
![Page 11: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
REG. STATE I PROJECT SHEET I TOTAL
NO. SHEETS
Ill Vt !Dem o 22. 1 I 1
Pre coated crushed stone chips ( 201bs.±/S.Y.}-------~
2 " a-
Asphalt mast i c .... , , , .. ,.,, .. . ,,,,,. ,.,,,,,,.,, ,,,,,, t l"
Fiberglass cloth Y2 - ·· : ·- ol· ·· .. ·~· · · · ._ .. . _._ .. -_, ---~ .. -<:. ·;;:· .. -\ ..... ·J, .. · · · ··u·· ·· ·-~ ........ -·- ~., . ...... .. , • ,-.., • • • ... • .· . . £]' . 's-/ •' • I' . . ~ ; , . .. . ~ ? _,, .. . . ,- Sf ' . .. ' .
-~;0~:;·. · · Q· _."-: ,GONCR~TE6Rt·D~E o~~K .'u.',.:_·-:.:(0-· :.Q}· ~ ·· - . ,_ ., ·. (..J:. , -··o... - ~· .. ...... ··.: .. __ ,
I ... , I ~. • • t • ·~ ( ., I \ ... , • ' . •• • .. • ,
,'.. ';. · .... "'· ~ .. ~ ... . :.. ~ .. - - .·; \ ..,. : ·: .. --:.. ._ • ~ o ' • ~ - "I , • • - - •-. ' • o # • -~ ' , , • o ;J .._,# •,
.. .. , ' • .,..... - ... "' •• - ~ f - \. \,.. ' f ,. ~ ... - ... • •• ,,,- I • 41\. • • • • \ • • • • ""-.J ' \ ,
Fiberglass mesh
Typical Cross Section of Gussas phalt
Waterproofing Memb ran e
![Page 12: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 -
0
VERMONT DEPARTifENT OF HIGHWAYS - HATERIALS DIVISION
~ EAST
CRACKS IN GUSSASPHALT PROTECTIVE SYSTEH ROUTE 62/BLACKWELL STREET, BARRE
\ \ v Core #4J
\ -~ ./
0
2 3/4" f /- Cl in ppm 510 210
--Core Ill 1 5/8"
\
7 ~ WEST
- 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Scale 1"-=10 '
![Page 13: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM
August 1974
..;::- ... :
~· -:··
... :. ..
-=-··
-.:>
~='
, ...
•:\• ... ~-
. ')
~ ... "' '$
'. ·""·· ...... ... ~ Adding the mine ral filler into tho pugmill by hand. Fiberglass vapor release system. Note extension of system
over drain tube near curb face.
Placing and spreading mastic asphalt with squeegees. Voids in mastic asphalt prior to touch-up.
![Page 14: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM
August 1974
Placing the Gussasphalt d irectly in front of the leveling screed.
Difficultie5 with the leveling screed dragging the mix.
Eastbound lane complete. Note where stone chips penetrated into the Gussasphalt.
Depressions in the fln ished surface at locations where the mix was dragged.
![Page 15: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Loss of seal at curb line
Gussasphalt Bridge Deck Protective System
April, 1976
Cracks in Gussasphalt
Core hole showing full depth crack
Routing and burning cracks prior to sealing
![Page 16: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
VERMONT ROUTE 62/DLACKWELL STREET
Data on Traffic Volume, Climatic Conditions and Deicing Chemical Applications
Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic
Pe rcent Trucks
Climatic Conditions
1974 - 2875 (Nov.-Dec.) 1975 - 3697 1976 - 4400 (Jan. - Aug.)
6%
Average Freeze-Thaw Date
Average Temperature Minimum Temp. Cycles
Oct. 1974 Nov. 1974 Dec. 1974 Jan. 1975 Feb. 1975 Mar. 1975 Apr. 1975
Oct. 1975 Nov. 1975 Dec. 1975 Jan. 1976 Feb. 197~ Mar. 1976 Apr . 1976
44° 36° 28° 23° 22° 28° 37°
50° 42° 19° 12° 24° 30° 47°
34° 29° 22° 15° 14° 20° 30°
43° 36° 11°
zo 14° 21° 38°
Annual Application of Deicing Chemicals
1974 - 1975
1975 - 1976
15 13 23 11 10 17
_.!2__ Totals 108
1 10
8 5
18 14 10
Totals 66
35.5 tons per mile
49.3 tons per mile
11
Snmo1fall
Trace 11. 9" 21. 9" 15.5" 20. 0" 17.0" 25.4"
111. 7"
Trace 12.0" 29. 7" 45.3" 18.4" 28.6" 2.0"
136.0"
![Page 17: GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM€¦ · GUSSASPHALT BRIDGE DECK P~OTECTIVE SYSTEM FINAL REPORT 76 - 2 October, 1976 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHl.JAYS A. Rist au, Acting Commissioner](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070808/5f0722c47e708231d41b7bba/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
CHLORIDE LEVELS
S~~y OF CHLORIDE LEVELS , RESISTIVITY AND MOISTURE STRIP READINGS
Cores taken f r om wes t bound span at points 36 feet west of easterl y approach s l ab joint on 9- 14- 76 .
0 - 1" Core {I Location PPM lbs.
1 1 f t. off curb 284 1.1 4.6' from nearest cr ack
2 4.1' off curb 755 3.0 1.5' from nearest crack
3 10.2' off curb 510 2.0 7' and 13 feet down grade from nearest cracks
Initial chloride levels recorded at 49 - 66 ppm toJB lane 62 - 68 ppm EB lane
ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE
1975 -Eastbound - Infinity at 31 locations Westbound - Infinity at 33 locations
1976 -Eastbound - Infinity at 28 locations Westbound - Infinity at 22 locations
1" - 2" PP~i lbs.
300 1.2
275 1.1
210 0.8
40 million, 25 million and 8 million ohms at filled crack areas.
RESISTANCE READINGS ON COPPER FOIL STRIPS IN OHMS
STRIP NUMBER
Date 1 2 3 4
8-21-74 95,000 29,000 30,000 9-25-74 9,500 35,000 95,000 60,000 11- 14-74 7,000 10,000 130,000 55,000
6-5-75 800 250 700 400 6- 26-75 280,000
2-25-76 500 500 650 9-15-76 80 75 20,000,000 100
12